Pixel Tracker

Friday, January 18 , 2019, 5:13 pm | Fair 62º


David Harsanyi: Liberals’ Sudden Concern About Bill Clinton’s Behavior Is Cynical

A number of notable liberals have recently decided to start taking allegations of sexual assault against former President Bill Clinton seriously.

Let's just say that discarding the Clintons when they're no longer politically useful in order to retroactively grab the higher moral ground isn't exactly an act of heroism. But if we're going to relitigate history, let's get it right.

In The New York Times, for example, Michelle Goldberg spends around 75 percent of her column titled "I Believe Juanita" rationalizing why it was OK not to believe Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape decades ago.

You won't be surprised to learn that Goldberg claims the politics and conspiracy-mongering of conservatives provoked skepticism among liberals — excuses that will be awfully familiar to anyone following the justification of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore's supporters.

The most notable problem with Goldberg's contention is that the Broaddrick allegation was uncovered by NBC News, not Richard Scaife.

Well, specifically, it was uncovered by NBC News after the network sat on the story throughout the president's impeachment proceedings.

According to the network, the story had to be put through an arduous fact-checking process that included figuring out where Clinton had been the day of the alleged rape — something that had been worked out in a few days' time.

Then again, the myth that most of the media was enthusiastic about uncovering damaging stories related to Clinton's background persists today.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, for example, both had their hands on Broaddrick's rape allegation in 1992 but dropped the story.

It's also worth remembering that reporter Michael Isikoff was suspended after fighting with his editors at the Washington Post for having dragged their feet on the Paula Jones story in 1994.

And in 1998, Isikoff's reporting on Monica Lewinsky for Newsweek was shelved until the Drudge Report brought it to the public's attention. Only after that point did the reporting take off.

In any event, Broaddrick's story had a short shelf life despite the fact that five witnesses claimed she had told them about the rape right after it happened. There were other credible sexual assault allegations against Clinton that went largely ignored. 

However reluctant editors might have been in moving forward with these stories, though, the fact is that most of them were ultimately brought to the public's attention by established news organizations, not shady right-wing outlets.

Still, Democrats weren't just skeptical of these women; they often treated them with disdain and smeared them for political expediency.

Even today, there is so much throat clearing and blame shifting when it comes to talking about Clinton that it is highly unlikely the dynamics have really changed. Goldberg, for instance, links to a Brian Beutler article in which he cautions liberals to treat future accusations against Democrats in the same way liberals treated Broaddrick.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes recently tweeted, "As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right's 'what about Bill Clinton' stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him."

Why is it gross to point out that Democrats were celebrating Clinton only last year at the Democratic National Convention — a convention focused specifically on the ascension of women in public life — even though everyone was privy to all facts regarding his behavior?

In 1998, reporter Nina Burleigh famously wrote that not only would she "be happy" to perform fellatio on Clinton for keeping abortion legal (talk about a straw man) but also that "American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."

Burleigh was an honest liberal who made the moral calculus that whatever Clinton's sins might be, his fight against the imaginary theocracy was well worth the degradation of a few women.

Attacks on Clinton, she later explained, were an "insidious use of sexual harassment laws to bring down a president for his pro-female politics."

Although it wasn't said aloud often, the actions of the entire Democratic Party confirmed Burleigh's position, in spirit if not in action. The Clintons were counting on it.

An unhealthy veneration for presidents and a deep disdain for the other side induces people to rationalize the worst kind of votes. It is the same calculus some partisans use when defending Moore or Sen. Bob Menendez.

But it takes no "courage" to speak up later — certainly not decades later; certainly not when your purpose is transparently partisan.

This isn't a reckoning as much as it is a face-saving.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @davidharsanyi, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.